I need an explanation of something and for once I would hope that it would be a valid explanation. For the past so many college football seasons, there has been a constant “debate” at the end of each season about the validity of the bowl season and/or the need for a playoff system. There probably isn’t another thing in sports that is guaranteed to produce arguments every year. Even the president elect is engaged by this stuff. I hope he has more important things on his plate to fix, but it still caught his attention.
You can probably set your watch to it. Every year, towards the end of the college football season, everyone will begin discussing this topic and it seems like there is no middle ground on this. People are either for creating a playoff system or for keeping the current BCS and bowl system as it is now.
I, like everyone else, have a very clear and passionate stance on this issue. After years or hearing all the discussion surrounding this and listening to various people come up with possible alternatives to the current system I came up with my own suggestion. I’m using this forum to propose my solution and at the same time I plan on sending this out to every possible media outlet and person/organization that is involved with college football in an effort to get a proper explanation or rebuttal to why this solution would not work.
As always, the comments of anyone reading this are greatly welcomed and appreciated.
I also acknowledge the normal setbacks and oppositions to playoff systems and have tried to keep them in mind when coming up with this solution. I will address the major oppositions as I go through this.
The basic premise to my proposal is to create a 16-team playoff as well as keeping some sort of bowl system intact. Most of the opponents of the playoff system sight a reason against it as that it would eliminate the bowls and the greatness that they bring to college football. With the addition of a number of different bowls over the years, we are currently looking at a college football bowl season that will run from late December through the first week of January and will consist of 34 different bowl games. That means that 68 of the 120 Division 1-A (or whatever it is called now) will play in a bowl game. That means more than half the teams will play in a postseason bowl. To me, that seems a little excessive, but I am willing to accept it as a reason if this is really a value to these teams.
The way I will hope to do this is by taking the 6 conference champions from the “power conferences” and then giving 10 at-large bids to the next 10 highest ranks teams in the BCS standings. It makes the selection process a relatively arbitrary process as there isn’t a selection committee that meets and determines the participants, like they do in basketball. The selection committee essentially becomes the humans who vote in the Harris and the USA today polls as well as the 6 computer rankings that are used to compile the current BCS standings. I have no problem with the BCS as a ranking system; in fact I think it’s a pretty good system, in that it combines a couple computer rankings and actual human polling. My problem with the BCS system is that it only matters in determining the top 2 ranked teams. Does it matter whether a team is ranked ninth or tenth? Not for any real purpose.
Each team, regardless of their conference affiliation, will begin their regular season on Labor Day weekend. All schools are back in session by then and it’s a great way to wrap up people’s summer season. Each team will play 12 regular season games with one “bye” week mixed in during the year. The conferences can determine how they’d like those games set up, if they want the teams playing 10 conference games and 2 out-of-conference games or if they want teams playing 8 and 4. The split would obviously depend on the number of teams in the conference and how they are set up. But that part would be left to the conferences to decided the structure. Therefore each team’s season would end the weekend before Thanksgiving, much like the Big Ten’s season ends now. Conferences who need to have a conference championship game can have them on Thanksgiving weekend. Then, the two weekends following Thanksgiving would be the first two rounds of the playoffs. These games would take place at the site of the higher seeded teams. This would eliminate the need for teams’ fan’s to travel for multiple weekends in a row (another argument the opposition makes). There would then be a one-week break for finals before the semi-final round taking place the weekend between Christmas and New Year’s. The National Championship game would then take place the following weekend after New Year’s or that Monday night following, if the NCAA is concerned about going up against the NFL playoffs. The semi-final and championship games would take place at the sites of the 4 BCS bowls, based on a rotating schedule, much like they are now, with the fourth bowl getting first choice of the non-playoff teams to play in their game (presumably the 17th and 18th ranked teams). The only stipulation would that the Rose Bowl would always be included in the 3-bowl mix since it has the longest tradition and would probably be the most opposed to the possibility of getting a lesser game once every 4 years.
Aside from the Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, and Sugar Bowl, the remaining bowls would stay intact and teams not involved in the 16-team playoff would be giving invitations as they are now. There are currently 10 teams that play in BCS bowls, so you would only be taking 6 teams out of the remaining bowls and filling their spots with other bowl eligible teams or by eliminating some of the bowls and consolidating the teams from there. To me, there should not be a reward for a team who finishes a season 6-6, which is all that is necessary for a team to be “bowl eligible.”
Those are the main elements of my proposal. Obviously there are minute details that would need to be worked out over time and logistical/scheduling issues that would need to be determined, but overall that is the basis for it.
Here is how the playoffs would set up this year. Since the conference championship games of the ACC, Big 12, and the SEC still need to be played this weekend, I’m going to make some assumptions on the results of those games. For argument’s sake, I’m going to say that Oklahoma beats Missouri, Boston College beats Virginia Tech, and Florida beats Alabama. Therefore the 6 automatic bids would go to the following teams: Oklahoma (Big 12), Florida (SEC), Boston College (ACC), Penn St. (Big 10), USC (Pac 10), and Cincinnati (Big East). The at-large teams would then be Texas, Alabama, Utah, Texas Tech, Boise St., Ohio St., TCU, Ball St., Oklahoma St., and Georgia Tech. I really don’t want to go through the whole breakdown here, but that is the essence of the whole system. You would then possibly end up with a game on Saturday the 27th of December between USC and Oklahoma in Pasadena, called the “Rose Bowl.” With the winner of that game advancing to the National Championship Sugar Bowl the following weekend in New Orleans to be opposed by the winner of the “Orange Bowl” semifinal in Miami between Texas and Florida. Would the Orange Bowl rather have Cincinnati against Boston College in a semi-meaningless game or Texas against Florida in a semi-final game? To me, it seems pretty obvious.
Essentially, there are a few generic arguments that I would like to make to enhance my point.
o Every system is going to bring about controversy. There is controversy surrounding March Madness each year as the selection committee is criticized for their at-large selections and teams complain that they should’ve been included. Team #66 is always going to complain.
o The purpose of this system is to keep the controversy at a minimum. You also would like to eliminate the possibility of a team going undefeated in a power conference and not having the chance to compete for a tile. I’d much rather have a situation where the 17th team in the country is complaining, as opposed to the 3rd or 4th.
o Every NCAA team sport (including the other 3 divisions of college football) currently has a playoff system of some sort in place to determine their champion. It seems somewhat inexcusable that Division 1-A college football is that much different.
o Most people who are in favor of the current system say that a playoff would ruin the college football regular season, where every game matters because one loss could end a team’s chances for a championship. I agree that this may take a little bit of that away, but I still think there will be intrigue in a lot of the games. While one loss may not end a team’s season (which is a ridiculous idea on its own) a loss late in the year (a team’s second or third) could knock them out of an at-large spot.
o Would there be less appeal to the Florida-Alabama SEC title game, since both would be assured a spot in the playoffs and would only be playing for seeding? Yes, absolutely. But conversely, would it not make the ACC championship game between Boston College and Virginia Tech so much more exciting as it would be a virtual play-in game since the loser would not be in the top 16 of the BCS. And also the Big 12 game, would give Missouri much more reason to play hard and beat Oklahoma since that would get them into the tournament.
As I said, I really feel like this proposal would work for all parties involved and really go a long way in helping to determine a true champion of college football. I would love to hear the opposition to this and to hear a true, legitimate reason to why the current system is better than this proposal.
Monday, December 1, 2008
How to fix College Football
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
65 to 16
We're preparing for the second weekend of the NCAA tournament. We started last Tuesday night with Coppin State and Mount St. Mary's. We finished the first weekend with Louisville and North Carolina wiping the floors with Oklahoma and Arkansas, respectively. It was a typical opening weekend of the NCAA tournament. There were some last second buzzer beaters, there were down-to-the-wire games. There were a couple of OT games. And we got a couple of upsets and wound up with a few double digit seeds in the sweet 16.
Now we look forward, and I say that because the 3 teams I mentioned as potential upset candidates are all out of the tournament. I always think the first weekend is for the lower seeds and the upsets. The second weekend is when the higher seeds take over. I am one, and probably in the minority, who will not be rooting for Davidson, Western Kentucky, or Villanova this weekend. I want to see the marquee match ups now.
I don't wanna get too far ahead, but there are definitely some games that I'm looking forward to this weekend should they happen.
A couple thoughts on the games that are set right now.
WEST
* I think UCLA right now, although they may have been the least impressive #1 seed so far, probably has the easiest path to the Final Four. I know Western Kentucky is a nice team and they've won 2 games already, but they may have had an easy track to get to this point. Xavier is a step below the three other #3 seeds in the tournament and West Virginia, while they are from the best conference in the country, they may not be one of the elite teams. I would be surprised if there were another team besides UCLA in the Final Four representing the West. I said the same thing prior to the tournament starting also and that was based purely on draw.
-- Game I want to see: UCLA v West Virginia
-- Player that can single-handily lead his team to a Final Four: Joe Alexander, W. Va. After an average game against Arizona in the first round, he was excellent against Duke. He kept his team in the game in the first half while they were saddled with a little foul trouble. He can put a team on his back and lead them to another couple wins.
-- Player who can be a difference maker (non obvious): Derrick Caracter, Louisville. This kid has been through a ton in his career dating back to his sophomore year in high school. He's been to a number of different high schools, gotten thrown off his college team a couple times, and struggled with his weight, but the one thing he has is talent. When he wants to score the ball, he can score it. If he plays to his ability, he could be a big factor against both Tennessee and Carolina. He gives them the ability to throw 4 post players, Padgett, Palacios, Clark, and him at any team.
MIDWEST
* I've been on Kansas all year. Stayed on them last week. And I have no reason to get off of them now. I think they got a bit fortunate that Villanova is their next opponent and that Georgetown got knocked out by Davidson. I think Villanova is a good team and Scottie Reynolds is a very good player, but they are a bit inconsistent and young and I think Kansas' experience, depth, and talent will help them prevail. Davidson is a nice story and everyone loves Stephen Curry and is getting to know him. In 3 NCAA tournament games in his career he has scored over 100 points. He truly is a great scorer but he is about to run into maybe the best "system defense" team in the country. Wisconsin may be the most underrated team in the country and I think they'll be able to handle Curry and Davidson, setting up a nice match up on Sunday.
-- Game I want to see: Wisconsin v Kansas
-- Best 1-on-1 match up: Michael Flowers, Wisco v Stephen Curry, Davidson. As I mentioned earlier, Curry has been an absolute stud in 3 tournament games in his career. He is a lethal shooter, like his father was. He can score in bunches. He brought his team back against a much better Georgetown team and he moves better than anyone I've seen without the ball. I think that is one thing that sets him apart from other good scorers, like Indiana's Eric Gordon. He works so hard to get himself open that it makes him truly difficult to cover. Flowers is the best defensive player in the Big Ten. He can play point guards or bigger forwards. He's done a great job this year on Gordon, Drew Neitzel from Michigan St., and Manny Harris from Michigan. He did a pretty good job of frustrating Bill Walker last weekend as well even though he was giving away a good deal of size to him. It should be interesting to see what he can do with Curry.
SOUTH
*Memphis survived last weekend against Mississippi St. Stanford used a last second shot from Brook Lopez to beat Marquette. Texas held off a gritty Miami team and Michigan St. was very impressive in beating a hot Pittsburgh team. Many people liked Pitt to make a deep run in the tournament, but Michigan St. ended those thoughts. Now they get #1 seed Memphis. Memphis has more talent and more athletes than Michigan St. If they can make jump shots they are going to be very tough for Michigan St. to beat. The Spartans can not afford for Drew Neitzel to have another poor game like he had against Temple in the first round. Tom Izzo has been known to get his teams ready for this time of year and beat some good teams at this point, but I don't know if he has the talent to do it this year. The other match up is very intriguing to me. Stanford has the Lopez twins, who are getting some much due credit. It's hard for any team to match up with two 7-footers and they can cause a lot of havoc on the defensive end of the floor as well. Texas' strength is their backcourt. They may have the best backcourt in the country with Augustin and Abrams. It could come down to whether Texas can handle the size of Stanford or whether Stanford's guards can handle the quickness of Texas' perimeter players.
-- Game I want to see: Texas v Stanford. I'd like to see these two teams meet because they are probably the most talented teams in the region and I think they match up the best. With that being said, I think Stanford will beat Texas because their size will be too much and I like their guards more than other people (more on that next)
-- Underrated player who will make a difference: Mitch Johnson, Stanford. Against Marquette's aggressive, quick guards, Johnson had 16 assists and only 1 turnover. If he can perform the same way against Texas and Memphis' pressure D, Stanford is going to be a tough out. Two 7-footers is nice to have and tough to match up with, but guard play still wins at this time of year, and Johnson is playing very well right now.
All four of my Final Four teams are still alive, but I will change one of them now. I'm putting Stanford in the Final Four over Texas now. I like what I've seen from them in two games. That means I have Louisville, Kansas, UCLA, and Stanford.
Let's enjoy a nice weekend of great college basketball.
Now we look forward, and I say that because the 3 teams I mentioned as potential upset candidates are all out of the tournament. I always think the first weekend is for the lower seeds and the upsets. The second weekend is when the higher seeds take over. I am one, and probably in the minority, who will not be rooting for Davidson, Western Kentucky, or Villanova this weekend. I want to see the marquee match ups now.
I don't wanna get too far ahead, but there are definitely some games that I'm looking forward to this weekend should they happen.
A couple thoughts on the games that are set right now.
WEST
* I think UCLA right now, although they may have been the least impressive #1 seed so far, probably has the easiest path to the Final Four. I know Western Kentucky is a nice team and they've won 2 games already, but they may have had an easy track to get to this point. Xavier is a step below the three other #3 seeds in the tournament and West Virginia, while they are from the best conference in the country, they may not be one of the elite teams. I would be surprised if there were another team besides UCLA in the Final Four representing the West. I said the same thing prior to the tournament starting also and that was based purely on draw.
-- Game I want to see: UCLA v West Virginia
-- Player that can single-handily lead his team to a Final Four: Joe Alexander, W. Va. After an average game against Arizona in the first round, he was excellent against Duke. He kept his team in the game in the first half while they were saddled with a little foul trouble. He can put a team on his back and lead them to another couple wins.
EAST
* North Carolina has been the most impressive team thus far in two games, but they may have the toughest path to the Final Four. Tennessee was probably the best #2 seed going into the tournament as they were in line for a #1 seed until the last day of the season and are now one of the two #2 seeds left in the field. Louisville is playing the best of all the #3 seeds still alive. Their dominance against Oklahoma on Sunday was very impressive and they have the depth and personnel to match up with Carolina. Washington St. is the one team left in the tourney whose style of play contrasts most with Carolina. In their previous game, they took one of the best scoring teams in the country, Notre Dame, and completely shut them down. Carolina is probably more balanced, more explosive, and better than Notre Dame, but it should still be fair warning of their defensive abilities. And Kyle Weaver is the type of player who could excel in March. Marcus Ginyard will have his hands full trying to contain him.
-- Game I want to see: Louisville v North Carolina. I would feel much more comfortable picking Louisville if the game were not being played in Charlotte. You would think that Carolina will have a semi home-court advantage. Otherwise I envision a classic contest on Saturday evening.-- Player who can be a difference maker (non obvious): Derrick Caracter, Louisville. This kid has been through a ton in his career dating back to his sophomore year in high school. He's been to a number of different high schools, gotten thrown off his college team a couple times, and struggled with his weight, but the one thing he has is talent. When he wants to score the ball, he can score it. If he plays to his ability, he could be a big factor against both Tennessee and Carolina. He gives them the ability to throw 4 post players, Padgett, Palacios, Clark, and him at any team.
MIDWEST
* I've been on Kansas all year. Stayed on them last week. And I have no reason to get off of them now. I think they got a bit fortunate that Villanova is their next opponent and that Georgetown got knocked out by Davidson. I think Villanova is a good team and Scottie Reynolds is a very good player, but they are a bit inconsistent and young and I think Kansas' experience, depth, and talent will help them prevail. Davidson is a nice story and everyone loves Stephen Curry and is getting to know him. In 3 NCAA tournament games in his career he has scored over 100 points. He truly is a great scorer but he is about to run into maybe the best "system defense" team in the country. Wisconsin may be the most underrated team in the country and I think they'll be able to handle Curry and Davidson, setting up a nice match up on Sunday.
-- Game I want to see: Wisconsin v Kansas
-- Best 1-on-1 match up: Michael Flowers, Wisco v Stephen Curry, Davidson. As I mentioned earlier, Curry has been an absolute stud in 3 tournament games in his career. He is a lethal shooter, like his father was. He can score in bunches. He brought his team back against a much better Georgetown team and he moves better than anyone I've seen without the ball. I think that is one thing that sets him apart from other good scorers, like Indiana's Eric Gordon. He works so hard to get himself open that it makes him truly difficult to cover. Flowers is the best defensive player in the Big Ten. He can play point guards or bigger forwards. He's done a great job this year on Gordon, Drew Neitzel from Michigan St., and Manny Harris from Michigan. He did a pretty good job of frustrating Bill Walker last weekend as well even though he was giving away a good deal of size to him. It should be interesting to see what he can do with Curry.
SOUTH
*Memphis survived last weekend against Mississippi St. Stanford used a last second shot from Brook Lopez to beat Marquette. Texas held off a gritty Miami team and Michigan St. was very impressive in beating a hot Pittsburgh team. Many people liked Pitt to make a deep run in the tournament, but Michigan St. ended those thoughts. Now they get #1 seed Memphis. Memphis has more talent and more athletes than Michigan St. If they can make jump shots they are going to be very tough for Michigan St. to beat. The Spartans can not afford for Drew Neitzel to have another poor game like he had against Temple in the first round. Tom Izzo has been known to get his teams ready for this time of year and beat some good teams at this point, but I don't know if he has the talent to do it this year. The other match up is very intriguing to me. Stanford has the Lopez twins, who are getting some much due credit. It's hard for any team to match up with two 7-footers and they can cause a lot of havoc on the defensive end of the floor as well. Texas' strength is their backcourt. They may have the best backcourt in the country with Augustin and Abrams. It could come down to whether Texas can handle the size of Stanford or whether Stanford's guards can handle the quickness of Texas' perimeter players.
-- Game I want to see: Texas v Stanford. I'd like to see these two teams meet because they are probably the most talented teams in the region and I think they match up the best. With that being said, I think Stanford will beat Texas because their size will be too much and I like their guards more than other people (more on that next)
-- Underrated player who will make a difference: Mitch Johnson, Stanford. Against Marquette's aggressive, quick guards, Johnson had 16 assists and only 1 turnover. If he can perform the same way against Texas and Memphis' pressure D, Stanford is going to be a tough out. Two 7-footers is nice to have and tough to match up with, but guard play still wins at this time of year, and Johnson is playing very well right now.
All four of my Final Four teams are still alive, but I will change one of them now. I'm putting Stanford in the Final Four over Texas now. I like what I've seen from them in two games. That means I have Louisville, Kansas, UCLA, and Stanford.
Let's enjoy a nice weekend of great college basketball.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
My favorite time of year...
We're a couple hours away from tip-off. The NCAA tournament is about to begin and as expected, I'm giddy. I now know what the Sports Guy feels like when he writes his preview columns before his fantasy drafts. It's kind of tough to write preview columns and not reveal your secrets or your real thought processes. That is the reason I've waited to preview the NCAA tournament until now.
I'm not going to break down the entire thing but I'll make some notes and give some of my thought processes.
First of all, I think the selection committee did a great job in setting the field up. I think they got the right 65 teams in and any of the teams that got left out (Va. Tech, Arizona St., Illinois St) can't have a real beef. I think the one or two knocks I would have with the field is that Duke is overseeded (but not suprising) and the Big Ten was a little disrespected. I think Wisconsin and Duke should've been flipped. Wisconsin won the Big Ten regular season championship and conference tournament. I know they only got 4 teams into the tournament, but so did the ACC. Winning a major conference has to be worth something. But with that being said, it's a very minor thing.
I think the tournament sets up for a lot of chalk but there are some teams that could make runs that may be off the radar. Arizona is one of the most talented teams in the country and they played one of the toughest schedules this year. They have two players who can take over games in Budinger and Bayless and they've played tough games all year, so they shouldn't be intimidated in big games. Marquette is another team that could win a couple games. They have very talented guards and backcourts usually win in the tournament. If they can hit shots, they could be dangerous. Butler has assumed the role of Gonzaga from year's past. They are the "mid-major" who can knock off the big teams. Butler went to a sweet 16 last year and has a similar team. Another thing of interest is the fact that Butler's possible section round opponent is Tennessee. The same Tennessee team that they beat last year in the regular season.
I've been on Kansas all year and have thought they were the best team since the season began. I think they have the best makeup to win 6 straight games. They are talented, deep, and versatile. They have solid guard play as well as guys who can score with their back to the basket. They have a couple options to go to when they need a big bucket and they can also get a big stop when they need one. Chalmers is a legitimate lockdown defender and Brandon Rush is playing some good ball right now and can score the ball if need be. I think the one guy that makes them go and gives them a leg up on other teams is Sharron Collins. He is a legit sparkplug coming in off the bench and can provide some energy to the team should they need it. He is the difference that I pick them over UCLA in a well-played championship game. The other reason I like them over UCLA is I don't know if they have a guy who will make a big shot if they need it. I like Rush over Shipp in a late game spot.
I'm looking forward to the tournament getting started and I'm hoping for some exciting, well played games. This is the best weekend in sports, so let's get it started.
Oh, and if you're looking for an NIT selection, let's go CUSE. BLEED ORANGE
I'm not going to break down the entire thing but I'll make some notes and give some of my thought processes.
First of all, I think the selection committee did a great job in setting the field up. I think they got the right 65 teams in and any of the teams that got left out (Va. Tech, Arizona St., Illinois St) can't have a real beef. I think the one or two knocks I would have with the field is that Duke is overseeded (but not suprising) and the Big Ten was a little disrespected. I think Wisconsin and Duke should've been flipped. Wisconsin won the Big Ten regular season championship and conference tournament. I know they only got 4 teams into the tournament, but so did the ACC. Winning a major conference has to be worth something. But with that being said, it's a very minor thing.
I think the tournament sets up for a lot of chalk but there are some teams that could make runs that may be off the radar. Arizona is one of the most talented teams in the country and they played one of the toughest schedules this year. They have two players who can take over games in Budinger and Bayless and they've played tough games all year, so they shouldn't be intimidated in big games. Marquette is another team that could win a couple games. They have very talented guards and backcourts usually win in the tournament. If they can hit shots, they could be dangerous. Butler has assumed the role of Gonzaga from year's past. They are the "mid-major" who can knock off the big teams. Butler went to a sweet 16 last year and has a similar team. Another thing of interest is the fact that Butler's possible section round opponent is Tennessee. The same Tennessee team that they beat last year in the regular season.
I've been on Kansas all year and have thought they were the best team since the season began. I think they have the best makeup to win 6 straight games. They are talented, deep, and versatile. They have solid guard play as well as guys who can score with their back to the basket. They have a couple options to go to when they need a big bucket and they can also get a big stop when they need one. Chalmers is a legitimate lockdown defender and Brandon Rush is playing some good ball right now and can score the ball if need be. I think the one guy that makes them go and gives them a leg up on other teams is Sharron Collins. He is a legit sparkplug coming in off the bench and can provide some energy to the team should they need it. He is the difference that I pick them over UCLA in a well-played championship game. The other reason I like them over UCLA is I don't know if they have a guy who will make a big shot if they need it. I like Rush over Shipp in a late game spot.
I'm looking forward to the tournament getting started and I'm hoping for some exciting, well played games. This is the best weekend in sports, so let's get it started.
Oh, and if you're looking for an NIT selection, let's go CUSE. BLEED ORANGE
Thursday, March 13, 2008
The House that Ruth Built... and Jagr Closed
Late last week, word started to leak out about the possibility of Yankees stadium closing it's doors following a NY Rangers hockey game, not a Yankees game. I will start by saying that I am not a Yankee fan. I do not pretend to be a Yankee fan. In fact I am admittedly proud to be a Yankee hater. Now, I'm unsure if that makes any difference in this argument, but I'm trying to be as objective as I possibly can.
While I'm not a Yankee fan, I am very suprised that I haven't heard Yankee fans be more vocal about this. And while I understand it is not a definite that it will happen, it still seems like a good possibility. I've read reports where members of the Yankee organization were contacted by the NHL and the Rangers, and have expressed no concern about allowing it.
I imagine this discussion started due to the relative success of the NHL game that was played outdoors on New Year's Day this past January. I believe it was played in Buffalo and I remember hearing people talking about it and expressing interest in it. I think it was a novel idea and a cool concept to play a hockey game outdoors and the appeal of it was definately helped by the fact that it snowed while the game was being played. My understanding is that hockey was traditionally played by kids out on frozen ponds, much like kids playing pick up basketball games out on the blacktops during the summer. Therefore I can see the appeal of playing these games outdoors to bring some of those nostalgic feelings to the forefront. One of my criticisms of this idea, and by no means by biggest, is that it's going to be very hard to guarentee inclement weather during the winter in New York. The past two New Year's, we've had relatively mild days I think.
I guess my biggest problem with this whole thing is the fact that this is Yankee Stadium that we are talking about. And it's not that they are just playing a hockey game there. I know no real problem with a NHL game being played outdoors at Yankee Stadium. I have a problem with it being the last professional sporting event ever at Yankee Stadium. The Yankees are supposed to be above the gimmicky, promotional stuff. (or maybe not considering Billy Crystal's appearance yesterday) Wouldn't a Yankee prefer to see the last moment at their beloved park be Mariano Rivera striking someone out to win a playoff game or a walk off base hit by Jeter? All the history and tradition that the Yankees are about, all the playoff games played on that field, the retired numbers, the monuments, the great moments, Jeffrey Maier. And the last image people will have before they close the doors is Jaromir Jagr taking a slap shot? That would bother me if I were a Yankee fan.
Has sports become so much about money that we don't care about history and tradition? This isn't meant to be an attack at the Yankees either, it just happens that it's being mentioned in conjuction with them. I actually think if the Red Sox were to build a new stadium they may look for something like this to do as a final act at Fenway Park. And I would hope just the same that they wouldn't actually do it.
I hope the last game played at Yankee Stadium before they tear it down is a 4-2 loss to the Baltimore Orioles on Sept. 21.
A couple other notes.
* It seems like no one wants to make the NCAA field. In almost every instance where people said a team "needed to win the game" to keep their hopes alive or to secure a spot in the field, the team has lost. All 3 bubble teams in the Pac-10 lost their games. Syracuse lost to Villanova in a virtual "play-out" game. UMASS got upset by Charlotte yesterday. Dayton lost to Xavier. Baylor got upset by a 19-loss Colorado team. Florida lost to Alabama. Ole Miss lost to Georgia. New Mexico lost to Utah. Sunday will be very interesting to say the least.
* Wanna recommend an article if you have time to read it. I don't necessarily like to plug other websites, but the sports guy wrote a very good story on ESPN.com the other day. Check it out if you have a chance. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/080312
While I'm not a Yankee fan, I am very suprised that I haven't heard Yankee fans be more vocal about this. And while I understand it is not a definite that it will happen, it still seems like a good possibility. I've read reports where members of the Yankee organization were contacted by the NHL and the Rangers, and have expressed no concern about allowing it.
I imagine this discussion started due to the relative success of the NHL game that was played outdoors on New Year's Day this past January. I believe it was played in Buffalo and I remember hearing people talking about it and expressing interest in it. I think it was a novel idea and a cool concept to play a hockey game outdoors and the appeal of it was definately helped by the fact that it snowed while the game was being played. My understanding is that hockey was traditionally played by kids out on frozen ponds, much like kids playing pick up basketball games out on the blacktops during the summer. Therefore I can see the appeal of playing these games outdoors to bring some of those nostalgic feelings to the forefront. One of my criticisms of this idea, and by no means by biggest, is that it's going to be very hard to guarentee inclement weather during the winter in New York. The past two New Year's, we've had relatively mild days I think.
I guess my biggest problem with this whole thing is the fact that this is Yankee Stadium that we are talking about. And it's not that they are just playing a hockey game there. I know no real problem with a NHL game being played outdoors at Yankee Stadium. I have a problem with it being the last professional sporting event ever at Yankee Stadium. The Yankees are supposed to be above the gimmicky, promotional stuff. (or maybe not considering Billy Crystal's appearance yesterday) Wouldn't a Yankee prefer to see the last moment at their beloved park be Mariano Rivera striking someone out to win a playoff game or a walk off base hit by Jeter? All the history and tradition that the Yankees are about, all the playoff games played on that field, the retired numbers, the monuments, the great moments, Jeffrey Maier. And the last image people will have before they close the doors is Jaromir Jagr taking a slap shot? That would bother me if I were a Yankee fan.
Has sports become so much about money that we don't care about history and tradition? This isn't meant to be an attack at the Yankees either, it just happens that it's being mentioned in conjuction with them. I actually think if the Red Sox were to build a new stadium they may look for something like this to do as a final act at Fenway Park. And I would hope just the same that they wouldn't actually do it.
I hope the last game played at Yankee Stadium before they tear it down is a 4-2 loss to the Baltimore Orioles on Sept. 21.
A couple other notes.
* It seems like no one wants to make the NCAA field. In almost every instance where people said a team "needed to win the game" to keep their hopes alive or to secure a spot in the field, the team has lost. All 3 bubble teams in the Pac-10 lost their games. Syracuse lost to Villanova in a virtual "play-out" game. UMASS got upset by Charlotte yesterday. Dayton lost to Xavier. Baylor got upset by a 19-loss Colorado team. Florida lost to Alabama. Ole Miss lost to Georgia. New Mexico lost to Utah. Sunday will be very interesting to say the least.
* Wanna recommend an article if you have time to read it. I don't necessarily like to plug other websites, but the sports guy wrote a very good story on ESPN.com the other day. Check it out if you have a chance. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/080312
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
In preparation
I just want to post this now on Tuesday, March 11 in preparation of the upcoming controversy. I don't want it to seem like after-the-fact b*tching if a certain Big East team from upstate New York doesn't make the NCAA field of 65 for the second consecutive year.
I'm probably not going to have much of a basis for my arguments, but I want to point out a couple of things prior to selection Sunday.
First, there are a number of teams who are considered "bubble" teams this year who probably don't deserve to be there. Most of the bubble teams have some serious holes in their tournament resumes. You can point to specific games during the year where teams didn't play their best games, or certain numbers (ie RPI or SOS) that are less than appealing. It seems like the teams that should be feeling the urgency and playing their best ball in order to impress the committee are doing the exact opposite.
Also, some of this is coming from reading mock brackets and listening to different analysts discuss these things on TV. All that really means nothing because the only thing that matters is what 65 teams are put on the board around 6:30 on Sunday evening. That is why I am avoiding citing specific teams and situations.
The one thing I will say is that I've heard people say that it's a good year to be a mid-major because it doesn't seem like the big conferences are going as deep as they usually do with tournament quality teams. I think a lot of people like to see the mid major teams in the tournament and are intrigued by them. People love George Mason making a run to the Final 4 a couple years ago, Gonzaga winning a couple games in previous years, Albany giving UCONN all they could handle in a 1 vs 16 matchup. That's part of the joy of the NCAA tournament. Gus Johnson yelling "the slipper still fits" is great. Watching the players from Hampton lifting their coach off his feet after they upset Iowa St. is great theater, but we shouldn't forget the real goal of the NCAA tournament.
The NCAA tournament is set up to determine the best team in the college basketball, and it may not always end up being the best team, but the hottest, but it's usually still one of the elite teams that ends up cutting down the nets. For every George Mason, how many North Carolina, Kansas, UCLA, Kentucky's are there. With all that being said, the #1 job of the NCAA tournament selection committee should be to find the 34 best teams in the country after all the at-large bids have been determined. That should mean that all teams are judged the same way and use the same criteria. Teams should be judged on who they played, where they played them, and ultimately how they preformed over the entire season. If one team gets credit for a "quality win" against a certain team, any other team that beat that same team should also get credit for a "quality win." They are technically beating the same team, aren't they?
I also realize that I may be in the minority on this subject. Maybe that stems from my overwhelming interest and love in college basketball, but I enjoy an NCAA tournament more if it is competitive and when there are intriguing, well-played games. I realize people like the stories and the pageantry that goes with cinderalla teams, and the moments that get remembered are Bryce Drew diving on the ground and getting piled on by his teammates, but that only lasts so long. In 2006, when George Mason went to the final four, it was one of the most boring final fours ever. They were severely over matched by Florida (maybe they finally felt the wear of playing their fifth game in succession in a high intensity atmosphere against a quality opponent) and the LSU-UCLA game was just flat out boring.
Sunday evening and Monday morning there will be debates and arguments all over the place by everyone regarding their favorite team being left out of the tournament. Every year there is going to be a 66th and 67th team and they are always going to have beef with the committee and sometimes it will be more warranted than others, but I just hope that all the teams are judged the same way when the committee members are locked in that room and they're discussing the last few teams to get into the field.
Full tournament preview to come next week.
I'm probably not going to have much of a basis for my arguments, but I want to point out a couple of things prior to selection Sunday.
First, there are a number of teams who are considered "bubble" teams this year who probably don't deserve to be there. Most of the bubble teams have some serious holes in their tournament resumes. You can point to specific games during the year where teams didn't play their best games, or certain numbers (ie RPI or SOS) that are less than appealing. It seems like the teams that should be feeling the urgency and playing their best ball in order to impress the committee are doing the exact opposite.
Also, some of this is coming from reading mock brackets and listening to different analysts discuss these things on TV. All that really means nothing because the only thing that matters is what 65 teams are put on the board around 6:30 on Sunday evening. That is why I am avoiding citing specific teams and situations.
The one thing I will say is that I've heard people say that it's a good year to be a mid-major because it doesn't seem like the big conferences are going as deep as they usually do with tournament quality teams. I think a lot of people like to see the mid major teams in the tournament and are intrigued by them. People love George Mason making a run to the Final 4 a couple years ago, Gonzaga winning a couple games in previous years, Albany giving UCONN all they could handle in a 1 vs 16 matchup. That's part of the joy of the NCAA tournament. Gus Johnson yelling "the slipper still fits" is great. Watching the players from Hampton lifting their coach off his feet after they upset Iowa St. is great theater, but we shouldn't forget the real goal of the NCAA tournament.
The NCAA tournament is set up to determine the best team in the college basketball, and it may not always end up being the best team, but the hottest, but it's usually still one of the elite teams that ends up cutting down the nets. For every George Mason, how many North Carolina, Kansas, UCLA, Kentucky's are there. With all that being said, the #1 job of the NCAA tournament selection committee should be to find the 34 best teams in the country after all the at-large bids have been determined. That should mean that all teams are judged the same way and use the same criteria. Teams should be judged on who they played, where they played them, and ultimately how they preformed over the entire season. If one team gets credit for a "quality win" against a certain team, any other team that beat that same team should also get credit for a "quality win." They are technically beating the same team, aren't they?
I also realize that I may be in the minority on this subject. Maybe that stems from my overwhelming interest and love in college basketball, but I enjoy an NCAA tournament more if it is competitive and when there are intriguing, well-played games. I realize people like the stories and the pageantry that goes with cinderalla teams, and the moments that get remembered are Bryce Drew diving on the ground and getting piled on by his teammates, but that only lasts so long. In 2006, when George Mason went to the final four, it was one of the most boring final fours ever. They were severely over matched by Florida (maybe they finally felt the wear of playing their fifth game in succession in a high intensity atmosphere against a quality opponent) and the LSU-UCLA game was just flat out boring.
Sunday evening and Monday morning there will be debates and arguments all over the place by everyone regarding their favorite team being left out of the tournament. Every year there is going to be a 66th and 67th team and they are always going to have beef with the committee and sometimes it will be more warranted than others, but I just hope that all the teams are judged the same way when the committee members are locked in that room and they're discussing the last few teams to get into the field.
Full tournament preview to come next week.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
The NBA -- It's FANtastic
The NBA has just returned from their All-Star weekend and I couldn’t be more excited. That may seem like an odd thing to hear from someone around this time of year, especially one who hasn’t always been the biggest fan of the NBA. Most people refer to the time after the Super Bowl and before the NCAA tournament begins, as the dead period of sports. Well, for all those people out there (myself not being one of them) take a look towards the NBA. There is some good stuff going on there. I was slightly prompted to write this blog after noticing that my roommate had DVR’d the All-Star game the other day. Nobody gets excited about All-Star games in any sport, right? Let alone records them so that they don’t miss any of the action. I also noticed that I was very much into the Suns-Lakers game. Now, I still have a hard time watching an entire game through, but I admit, I am much more interested than I ever have been and I’m greatly looking forward to the playoffs. I’ll also temper this enthusiasm by saying I’d still probably choose a big time college game over the NBA.
With that said, let’s look at what the “association” has going for it these days. First, it has an abundance of extremely likeable stars, which I think is an underrated aspect of sports. Fans want to identify with and like the players they’re rooting for. While all of Major League Baseball’s players are currently being questioned about possible steroid use, the young guys in the NBA are running around the court smiling and putting on a show. LeBron, Chris Paul, Melo, Wade, Dwight Howard, Bosh, Deron Williams, Brandon Roy, etc, are all very likable, talented, AND young players. That’s not including the veteran guys like Nash, KG, Shaq, Pierce, Duncan, Iverson and so on that are still roaming the landscape of the NBA. If you took a look around All-Star weekend, there were guys that people really wanted to root for. Heck, even Kobe has rebounded and has gained some support from the fans. All in all, this is probably the best group of players the NBA has had since Magic, Bird, MJ, Isiah, and Barkley were running around out there.
More importantly though is the quality of basketball that is being played combined with the excitement of some of the potential playoff match-ups. In the East, you have two extremely elite teams; even teams that people would say have a chance to beat a Western conference team in the final. I know Miami won the championship a couple years ago, but no one really thought they had a chance and for the entire season, there was never any serious thought given to an Eastern team winning a championship. I am genuinely excited for the possibility of a Boston-Detroit conference championship and I think whoever came out of it would be just as likely to win a title as the team that came out of the West. (Note: prior to the All-Star game, Boston was 16-0 against Western conference teams.) I think they’re two regular season games this year are a good indication of what a 7-game series could be. The Celtics have three veteran guys who have never won anything and are extremely motivated to win a championship and more importantly extremely willing to do anything to win. Their desire and the way they play cause the guys around them to play the same way. It’s a very infectious thing and it makes them a very fun team to watch. Detroit is the team that’s been there many times before and has the veteran guys who’ve proven they can win. They also play a slightly less boring style of basketball, which helps in making me want to watch them. In addition to the usual suspects, they have some nice young guys, Stuckey, Affalo, and Maxiell, who are playing bigger roles for them that may put them ahead of where they’ve been.
There are two young, exciting teams behind them that are most likely a year or two away from being on their level but nonetheless are exciting to watch and have pieces that can make for difficult match-ups. The Magic have the next best dominating big man in the sport (Howard), a very good wing player (Lewis), a couple nice young guards (Nelson, Arroyo, Bogans), and one former role player that has emerged into a very good player (Turkoglu). Toronto has the poor man’s Steve Nash (Calderon), a host of good wing players who shoot the ball (Parker, Delfino, Kapono), and a great, yet underrated post player (Bosh). The last team in the East that can bring some interest to the party is Cleveland. The Cavs has one thing that no other team in the East (or all the league for that matter) has. His name is LeBron and he is the best player in the sport. (Sorry Kobe) We all saw what he could do last year as he single-handedly, with a very little help from Boobie Gibson, led his team to an Eastern conference title. They have exactly the same team, as his management has done nothing to help him out, so who’s to say he can’t do it again this year? My only thing is that I think the other teams are better this year. Obviously Boston is an elite team, but Detroit is also probably a bit better than they were last year.
Now to the West, which for years has been the superior conference and, from top to bottom, still is. The competitive balance in the conference is ridiculous. There are so many good teams and trying to pick out the best team or predict who will come out of the playoffs is near impossible. Ask a bunch of experts to predict the best team in the West and you may get 5 or 6 different answers. First of all, one of the following teams; Denver, Houston, or Golden State will not make the playoffs as a 50-win team. Second, most of the good teams in the West have gone out and made significant improvements, or at least moves (I’ll come back to that) to their teams. Anyway you look at it the Western conference playoffs have a chance to be as exciting and unpredictable as anything we’ve seen in a while.
At the top of the conference you have the Suns. One of the best regular-season teams for the past couple years, who’ve gotten very close the last two years to winning the conference title. Many of the same parts are there, but now they’ve just added the most dominating big man in the last 15 years. Is he past where he was during his prime? Absolutely, but can he make the Suns into a championship team is the real question. They probably maxed out their potential as they were constructed with Marion. They were going to win 60+ games and win a couple rounds of the playoffs, but lose to a tougher team. Now, they have a physical presence in the post that will bring a bit of toughness to the court if nothing else. He’ll still command some double teams which will open the perimeter up for all their shooters (Nash, Barbosa, Bell, Diaw, Hill) and not allow teams to focus so much on Stoudamire. Throw in the fact that they can throw the ball to him in the post when things slow down in the half-court postseason style of basketball. Watching Nash throw him an alley-oop last night in the second half gave me plenty of reason to think there are plenty of easy baskets for him to get which will give the big fella even more reason to get up and down the floor. In the postseason I think they’re more dangerous now with Shaq. The Lakers may be the most dangerous team in the West, but also the most uncertain. Kobe’s finger is a bit of a concern (41 point effort not withstanding) and nobody knows when and if Bynum will be back, nor how good he’ll be upon his return. With Bynum, they have two very good 7-footers and Gasol’s presence allows Bynum to really just focus on defense and rebounding. He doesn’t have to be a bona fide scoring option. Kobe is still the most clutch player in the league and has the ability to go off for 50 any night in the playoffs. Odom as a 4th offensive option is a very nice piece to have, but how he responds to that role needs to be determined. They have a bunch of nice role players as well in Fisher, Vukavic, Radmonovic, and Farmar.
The Spurs are the most consistent team of the past ten years. Everyone keeps saying they can turn it on once the postseason starts, but they are getting older each year and eventually that catches up to you. Their lockdown defender (Bowen) looks very old and doesn’t find himself on the floor in crunch time anymore. Horry, Finley, and Barry are older and not playing very well. Parker, Duncan, and Ginobili are still a very formidable trio and they have the best coach in the game, but it remains to be seen if they have the supporting cast to prevail from a loaded conference. Dallas was a team that absolutely needed to make a trade, but they may have ended up making the wrong one. They changed their style of play a couple years ago and ended up winning the conference. After having the NBA title taken away from them, they’ve seemed to become a little stagnant. They have one of the most underrated, up and coming stars in Josh Howard and a superstar in Dirk, but other than that they lack an identity. Dirk is still a 7-footer who does none of the things 7-footer’s do. Howard and Terry are guys that thrive in an open court game, and they had a young, promising point guard in Harris whose game closely resembled Tony Parker. They want to play the Spurs style but they lack the low-post presence of Duncan. Dirk doesn’t play that type of game. So, getting Kidd may not have been the right move for them. Instead I think they should’ve kept Harris and tried to get a low-post scorer instead. They gave up their best young chip to make a run at this season, and I don’t think they’re that close this season to a title.
The most intriguing team out West may be the Jazz. The only move they made came earlier in the season when the traded for Kyle Korver, a pure shooter to put on the wing. Other than that, they’ve relied on the process of developing talents and allowing players to grow together. Their core group of Boozer, Okur, AK, and Williams has played together for 3 years now and looks very comfortable together. Boozer has become a top-level post guy and Williams is one of the best point guards in the game. Their ability to run the two-man game like Malone and Stockton used to obviously make them dangerous. Throw in the fact that you can throw 3 shooters around them and I don’t think there are many teams that want to see them in a long series. As witnessed in last years playoffs, they can definitely make a run and now that they’re another year older, I think they might have what it takes. The team that I think everyone is rooting for is the Hornets. You have the New Orleans storyline, which makes them a feel good story and then they may have the most likable, exciting player in the whole game. Chris Paul has taken the league completely by storm, causing fans in Atlanta and Milwaukee to only dream of what could’ve been. Paul has been absolutely dominant this year. Throw in David West’s emergence as an All-Star and they have a nice little thing going. The only question about them is how they will handle the newness that is the playoffs, especially with so many quality, veteran teams out there. They have a nice nucleus with two good shooters (Peterson and Peja) on the wings with a defensive, rebounding presence in the middle (Chandler) and two All-Stars, but the experience is what may keep them from advancing far. If there was not so much other depth in the conference, I would feel much more comfortable backing them, but I can’t feel confident based on the other teams in the conference. Then you have the three teams battling for two spots. All of these teams are currently playing over .600 ball, so it’s pretty hard to imagine one of them not being in the playoffs, but it’s going to happen. Last year we saw what Golden State can do if they get in, Denver may be one of the most indefensible teams, with Melo and AI as the best scoring duo in the league, and Houston has Yao, who causes match-up problems for anyone. If T-Mac is playing to his potential, they obviously become a difficult out. Anyway you look at, the 1-8 match-up is going to be highly entertaining as are the rest of the match-ups. Needless to say I’m looking forward to it.
Heading into this season, there was a bit of a cloud hanging over the league because of the Tim Donaghy scandal. Some people questioned the integrity of the league, and will good cause, but it seems to have done little to temper people’s overall enthusiasm. I guess having compelling basketball doesn’t hurt that fact. But baseball is going to have a hard time distancing itself from the whole steroids thing and if anything comes out of the whole “spygate” scandal, the NFL may have a hard time getting away from that as well. Whatever the reason is, the NBA and David Stern should be very happy with the state of their league.
With that said, let’s look at what the “association” has going for it these days. First, it has an abundance of extremely likeable stars, which I think is an underrated aspect of sports. Fans want to identify with and like the players they’re rooting for. While all of Major League Baseball’s players are currently being questioned about possible steroid use, the young guys in the NBA are running around the court smiling and putting on a show. LeBron, Chris Paul, Melo, Wade, Dwight Howard, Bosh, Deron Williams, Brandon Roy, etc, are all very likable, talented, AND young players. That’s not including the veteran guys like Nash, KG, Shaq, Pierce, Duncan, Iverson and so on that are still roaming the landscape of the NBA. If you took a look around All-Star weekend, there were guys that people really wanted to root for. Heck, even Kobe has rebounded and has gained some support from the fans. All in all, this is probably the best group of players the NBA has had since Magic, Bird, MJ, Isiah, and Barkley were running around out there.
More importantly though is the quality of basketball that is being played combined with the excitement of some of the potential playoff match-ups. In the East, you have two extremely elite teams; even teams that people would say have a chance to beat a Western conference team in the final. I know Miami won the championship a couple years ago, but no one really thought they had a chance and for the entire season, there was never any serious thought given to an Eastern team winning a championship. I am genuinely excited for the possibility of a Boston-Detroit conference championship and I think whoever came out of it would be just as likely to win a title as the team that came out of the West. (Note: prior to the All-Star game, Boston was 16-0 against Western conference teams.) I think they’re two regular season games this year are a good indication of what a 7-game series could be. The Celtics have three veteran guys who have never won anything and are extremely motivated to win a championship and more importantly extremely willing to do anything to win. Their desire and the way they play cause the guys around them to play the same way. It’s a very infectious thing and it makes them a very fun team to watch. Detroit is the team that’s been there many times before and has the veteran guys who’ve proven they can win. They also play a slightly less boring style of basketball, which helps in making me want to watch them. In addition to the usual suspects, they have some nice young guys, Stuckey, Affalo, and Maxiell, who are playing bigger roles for them that may put them ahead of where they’ve been.
There are two young, exciting teams behind them that are most likely a year or two away from being on their level but nonetheless are exciting to watch and have pieces that can make for difficult match-ups. The Magic have the next best dominating big man in the sport (Howard), a very good wing player (Lewis), a couple nice young guards (Nelson, Arroyo, Bogans), and one former role player that has emerged into a very good player (Turkoglu). Toronto has the poor man’s Steve Nash (Calderon), a host of good wing players who shoot the ball (Parker, Delfino, Kapono), and a great, yet underrated post player (Bosh). The last team in the East that can bring some interest to the party is Cleveland. The Cavs has one thing that no other team in the East (or all the league for that matter) has. His name is LeBron and he is the best player in the sport. (Sorry Kobe) We all saw what he could do last year as he single-handedly, with a very little help from Boobie Gibson, led his team to an Eastern conference title. They have exactly the same team, as his management has done nothing to help him out, so who’s to say he can’t do it again this year? My only thing is that I think the other teams are better this year. Obviously Boston is an elite team, but Detroit is also probably a bit better than they were last year.
Now to the West, which for years has been the superior conference and, from top to bottom, still is. The competitive balance in the conference is ridiculous. There are so many good teams and trying to pick out the best team or predict who will come out of the playoffs is near impossible. Ask a bunch of experts to predict the best team in the West and you may get 5 or 6 different answers. First of all, one of the following teams; Denver, Houston, or Golden State will not make the playoffs as a 50-win team. Second, most of the good teams in the West have gone out and made significant improvements, or at least moves (I’ll come back to that) to their teams. Anyway you look at it the Western conference playoffs have a chance to be as exciting and unpredictable as anything we’ve seen in a while.
At the top of the conference you have the Suns. One of the best regular-season teams for the past couple years, who’ve gotten very close the last two years to winning the conference title. Many of the same parts are there, but now they’ve just added the most dominating big man in the last 15 years. Is he past where he was during his prime? Absolutely, but can he make the Suns into a championship team is the real question. They probably maxed out their potential as they were constructed with Marion. They were going to win 60+ games and win a couple rounds of the playoffs, but lose to a tougher team. Now, they have a physical presence in the post that will bring a bit of toughness to the court if nothing else. He’ll still command some double teams which will open the perimeter up for all their shooters (Nash, Barbosa, Bell, Diaw, Hill) and not allow teams to focus so much on Stoudamire. Throw in the fact that they can throw the ball to him in the post when things slow down in the half-court postseason style of basketball. Watching Nash throw him an alley-oop last night in the second half gave me plenty of reason to think there are plenty of easy baskets for him to get which will give the big fella even more reason to get up and down the floor. In the postseason I think they’re more dangerous now with Shaq. The Lakers may be the most dangerous team in the West, but also the most uncertain. Kobe’s finger is a bit of a concern (41 point effort not withstanding) and nobody knows when and if Bynum will be back, nor how good he’ll be upon his return. With Bynum, they have two very good 7-footers and Gasol’s presence allows Bynum to really just focus on defense and rebounding. He doesn’t have to be a bona fide scoring option. Kobe is still the most clutch player in the league and has the ability to go off for 50 any night in the playoffs. Odom as a 4th offensive option is a very nice piece to have, but how he responds to that role needs to be determined. They have a bunch of nice role players as well in Fisher, Vukavic, Radmonovic, and Farmar.
The Spurs are the most consistent team of the past ten years. Everyone keeps saying they can turn it on once the postseason starts, but they are getting older each year and eventually that catches up to you. Their lockdown defender (Bowen) looks very old and doesn’t find himself on the floor in crunch time anymore. Horry, Finley, and Barry are older and not playing very well. Parker, Duncan, and Ginobili are still a very formidable trio and they have the best coach in the game, but it remains to be seen if they have the supporting cast to prevail from a loaded conference. Dallas was a team that absolutely needed to make a trade, but they may have ended up making the wrong one. They changed their style of play a couple years ago and ended up winning the conference. After having the NBA title taken away from them, they’ve seemed to become a little stagnant. They have one of the most underrated, up and coming stars in Josh Howard and a superstar in Dirk, but other than that they lack an identity. Dirk is still a 7-footer who does none of the things 7-footer’s do. Howard and Terry are guys that thrive in an open court game, and they had a young, promising point guard in Harris whose game closely resembled Tony Parker. They want to play the Spurs style but they lack the low-post presence of Duncan. Dirk doesn’t play that type of game. So, getting Kidd may not have been the right move for them. Instead I think they should’ve kept Harris and tried to get a low-post scorer instead. They gave up their best young chip to make a run at this season, and I don’t think they’re that close this season to a title.
The most intriguing team out West may be the Jazz. The only move they made came earlier in the season when the traded for Kyle Korver, a pure shooter to put on the wing. Other than that, they’ve relied on the process of developing talents and allowing players to grow together. Their core group of Boozer, Okur, AK, and Williams has played together for 3 years now and looks very comfortable together. Boozer has become a top-level post guy and Williams is one of the best point guards in the game. Their ability to run the two-man game like Malone and Stockton used to obviously make them dangerous. Throw in the fact that you can throw 3 shooters around them and I don’t think there are many teams that want to see them in a long series. As witnessed in last years playoffs, they can definitely make a run and now that they’re another year older, I think they might have what it takes. The team that I think everyone is rooting for is the Hornets. You have the New Orleans storyline, which makes them a feel good story and then they may have the most likable, exciting player in the whole game. Chris Paul has taken the league completely by storm, causing fans in Atlanta and Milwaukee to only dream of what could’ve been. Paul has been absolutely dominant this year. Throw in David West’s emergence as an All-Star and they have a nice little thing going. The only question about them is how they will handle the newness that is the playoffs, especially with so many quality, veteran teams out there. They have a nice nucleus with two good shooters (Peterson and Peja) on the wings with a defensive, rebounding presence in the middle (Chandler) and two All-Stars, but the experience is what may keep them from advancing far. If there was not so much other depth in the conference, I would feel much more comfortable backing them, but I can’t feel confident based on the other teams in the conference. Then you have the three teams battling for two spots. All of these teams are currently playing over .600 ball, so it’s pretty hard to imagine one of them not being in the playoffs, but it’s going to happen. Last year we saw what Golden State can do if they get in, Denver may be one of the most indefensible teams, with Melo and AI as the best scoring duo in the league, and Houston has Yao, who causes match-up problems for anyone. If T-Mac is playing to his potential, they obviously become a difficult out. Anyway you look at, the 1-8 match-up is going to be highly entertaining as are the rest of the match-ups. Needless to say I’m looking forward to it.
Heading into this season, there was a bit of a cloud hanging over the league because of the Tim Donaghy scandal. Some people questioned the integrity of the league, and will good cause, but it seems to have done little to temper people’s overall enthusiasm. I guess having compelling basketball doesn’t hurt that fact. But baseball is going to have a hard time distancing itself from the whole steroids thing and if anything comes out of the whole “spygate” scandal, the NFL may have a hard time getting away from that as well. Whatever the reason is, the NBA and David Stern should be very happy with the state of their league.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Congressional Hearings
I apologize in advance for writing this but I couldn’t resist. There were a few things I needed to get off my chest
As a responsible journalist I decided to watch the congressional hearings yesterday involving Roger Clemens and Brian McNamee. Actually I was just stuck in an airport and it was on every TV. I didn’t really have a choice but to pay attention to it. To say it was embarrassing would a mild understatement. I think it was quite ridiculous and comical. To think that members of our congress spent over 5 hours yesterday in these hearings makes you wonder. Is this the best way that they can spend their time? More importantly, were we really asking the right questions or investigating the correct issues.
A couple notes that I made regarding this whole debacle:
Ø The purpose of this committee, the Mitchell report, and these pending investigations are to find out how popular steroid use was in professional sports, and how do we stop it. Most importantly, how do we get young kids to stop doing them? I feel as if we’ve completely lost sight of this. Instead it has turned into a prolonged effort to prove whether or not Roger Clemens or Brian McNamee is lying. It has become about two men. These hearings do not take place in a court of law. That was not supposed to be a trial about how was telling the truth. If you’re a high-school baseball player or a minor leaguer, are you going to think twice about doing steroids now? Probably not. The real lesson here is don’t lie about it if you get caught. Andy Pettite has admitted to using HGH. I’m pretty sure he’s going to trot out to the mound the first week of the season and will get cheered loudly by his adoring fans in Yankee Stadium. Brian Roberts admitted to using as well. His owner has gone over the top to praise him and has shown a reluctance to trade him because of the personal affection he has for him. If Clemens had come out and said “I’m sorry, I realize I shouldn’t have done steroids, but half the hitters I was facing were doing it at the time and I made a mistake,” we probably wouldn’t be talking about this anymore.
Ø The drawing of party lines and the clear distinction between the two viewpoints is quite discouraging. I know these guys are politicians, but they are not supposed to bring their political affiliations into these hearings. It’s also a bit disturbing that we cannot have a unified unpartisan view on this. Steroid use is a bad thing for this country, regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum, no?
Ø A couple Republicans took special effort to go out of their way to verbally attack Brian McNamee and ignore that Clemens, who is a friend of the Bush family, was even in the room. So much so that Rep. Waxman, the committee chairman, went out of his way to apologize to McNamee at the end of the hearings. I’m not saying McNamee is a good guy, but what Rep. Dan Burton and Rep. Chris Shays did was ugly. (By the way, if you get a second, look up Dan Burton. He’s quite a character. I feel bad for people in the 5th ward in Indiana.) Did anyone think that Clemens was going to get taken to task as much as he should have? A week earlier, he spent a good deal of time walking around Congress shaking hands and signing autographs for the congressmen and women. He’s a hero to many of these people, how can we expect them to be objective.
Ø One representative, a congresswomen from North Carolina, spent the first 3 minutes of her questioning explaining how she thought it was a gross misuse of time for them to be there and how she didn’t agree with them doing any of this. After this soliloquy, I was very much in favor of this woman until she proceeded to present a huge poster with 4 separate pictures of Clemens at various point in his career. She then “asked” Clemens, “There doesn’t appear to be any physical difference in your appearance, does it?” Talk about a tough, hard-hitting question. So, you don’t think your committee should be dealing with this hearing and you think it’s a waste of time, but you took the time to find 4 pictures of Roger Clemens in the same exact position and analyzed the size and shape of his body.
Ø Both of the stories have holes in them. McNamee is a guy who gave people an illegal substance and clearly has lied about things. On the surface, he seems less than credible. Clemens’ supposed closest friend in baseball and training partner has basically said Clemens talked to him about it. Clemens’ camp has also taken on the appearance that they may have tampered with a witness. Again, doesn’t do a whole lot to help your cause. Clemens didn’t look entirely comfortable during the whole proceedings. He made many forceful and demonstrative points during the hearings, but he constantly avoided answering direct questions. There were a number of instances also where the committee had to reprimand Clemens’ lawyers for speaking up during the hearing, which is not allowed and there were also a couple of times where his lawyers leaned in to whisper something in his ear. A tactic most people saw as them “coaching” him on how to answer the question.
Ø Clemens is correct in saying that his reputation will never be restored. He’s used the “how do you prove a negative” line numerous times. Much like Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa before him, Roger Clemens is always going to live with this cloud hanging over him. If he is completely innocent of all these allegations, that is very unfortunate for him. Because this may never get to a court of law, which may help him “prove the negative,” he is going to have to deal with how he is viewed in the court of public opinion.
Ø Bias aside, Clemens showed a bit of his true colors yesterday. He not only attacked what McNamee had said about him, but he threw his friend Andy Pettite, his agents, and his wife under the bus in order to save his own name. Either all of these people are in the wrong or this guy feels no loyalties to anyone. It was really a bit disturbing.
All in all, I think the day went pretty much according to how I thought it would go. We didn’t really learn anything new. I still think that Clemens did something illegal. And I still think that, despite the fact he’s telling the truth, Brian McNamee is less than a model citizen. I think the most disturbing thing was the performance of our elected officials. I think they acted in very poor taste regarding these hearing.
As a responsible journalist I decided to watch the congressional hearings yesterday involving Roger Clemens and Brian McNamee. Actually I was just stuck in an airport and it was on every TV. I didn’t really have a choice but to pay attention to it. To say it was embarrassing would a mild understatement. I think it was quite ridiculous and comical. To think that members of our congress spent over 5 hours yesterday in these hearings makes you wonder. Is this the best way that they can spend their time? More importantly, were we really asking the right questions or investigating the correct issues.
A couple notes that I made regarding this whole debacle:
Ø The purpose of this committee, the Mitchell report, and these pending investigations are to find out how popular steroid use was in professional sports, and how do we stop it. Most importantly, how do we get young kids to stop doing them? I feel as if we’ve completely lost sight of this. Instead it has turned into a prolonged effort to prove whether or not Roger Clemens or Brian McNamee is lying. It has become about two men. These hearings do not take place in a court of law. That was not supposed to be a trial about how was telling the truth. If you’re a high-school baseball player or a minor leaguer, are you going to think twice about doing steroids now? Probably not. The real lesson here is don’t lie about it if you get caught. Andy Pettite has admitted to using HGH. I’m pretty sure he’s going to trot out to the mound the first week of the season and will get cheered loudly by his adoring fans in Yankee Stadium. Brian Roberts admitted to using as well. His owner has gone over the top to praise him and has shown a reluctance to trade him because of the personal affection he has for him. If Clemens had come out and said “I’m sorry, I realize I shouldn’t have done steroids, but half the hitters I was facing were doing it at the time and I made a mistake,” we probably wouldn’t be talking about this anymore.
Ø The drawing of party lines and the clear distinction between the two viewpoints is quite discouraging. I know these guys are politicians, but they are not supposed to bring their political affiliations into these hearings. It’s also a bit disturbing that we cannot have a unified unpartisan view on this. Steroid use is a bad thing for this country, regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum, no?
Ø A couple Republicans took special effort to go out of their way to verbally attack Brian McNamee and ignore that Clemens, who is a friend of the Bush family, was even in the room. So much so that Rep. Waxman, the committee chairman, went out of his way to apologize to McNamee at the end of the hearings. I’m not saying McNamee is a good guy, but what Rep. Dan Burton and Rep. Chris Shays did was ugly. (By the way, if you get a second, look up Dan Burton. He’s quite a character. I feel bad for people in the 5th ward in Indiana.) Did anyone think that Clemens was going to get taken to task as much as he should have? A week earlier, he spent a good deal of time walking around Congress shaking hands and signing autographs for the congressmen and women. He’s a hero to many of these people, how can we expect them to be objective.
Ø One representative, a congresswomen from North Carolina, spent the first 3 minutes of her questioning explaining how she thought it was a gross misuse of time for them to be there and how she didn’t agree with them doing any of this. After this soliloquy, I was very much in favor of this woman until she proceeded to present a huge poster with 4 separate pictures of Clemens at various point in his career. She then “asked” Clemens, “There doesn’t appear to be any physical difference in your appearance, does it?” Talk about a tough, hard-hitting question. So, you don’t think your committee should be dealing with this hearing and you think it’s a waste of time, but you took the time to find 4 pictures of Roger Clemens in the same exact position and analyzed the size and shape of his body.
Ø Both of the stories have holes in them. McNamee is a guy who gave people an illegal substance and clearly has lied about things. On the surface, he seems less than credible. Clemens’ supposed closest friend in baseball and training partner has basically said Clemens talked to him about it. Clemens’ camp has also taken on the appearance that they may have tampered with a witness. Again, doesn’t do a whole lot to help your cause. Clemens didn’t look entirely comfortable during the whole proceedings. He made many forceful and demonstrative points during the hearings, but he constantly avoided answering direct questions. There were a number of instances also where the committee had to reprimand Clemens’ lawyers for speaking up during the hearing, which is not allowed and there were also a couple of times where his lawyers leaned in to whisper something in his ear. A tactic most people saw as them “coaching” him on how to answer the question.
Ø Clemens is correct in saying that his reputation will never be restored. He’s used the “how do you prove a negative” line numerous times. Much like Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa before him, Roger Clemens is always going to live with this cloud hanging over him. If he is completely innocent of all these allegations, that is very unfortunate for him. Because this may never get to a court of law, which may help him “prove the negative,” he is going to have to deal with how he is viewed in the court of public opinion.
Ø Bias aside, Clemens showed a bit of his true colors yesterday. He not only attacked what McNamee had said about him, but he threw his friend Andy Pettite, his agents, and his wife under the bus in order to save his own name. Either all of these people are in the wrong or this guy feels no loyalties to anyone. It was really a bit disturbing.
All in all, I think the day went pretty much according to how I thought it would go. We didn’t really learn anything new. I still think that Clemens did something illegal. And I still think that, despite the fact he’s telling the truth, Brian McNamee is less than a model citizen. I think the most disturbing thing was the performance of our elected officials. I think they acted in very poor taste regarding these hearing.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Ruining Sports
February 11, 2008
Are we ruining the games that we love? For many people, sports have played a huge role in their lives. Think about the things that you love about sports and why they mattered so much to you. Now are these things getting overlooked in the way sports are covered today?
Our culture has become one in which we want, need, and get information with such speed and wealth, that we have become a bit spoiled. We’ve also become a culture that is driven by shock value and “train wreck stories.” In a time when Britney Spears is on 24-hour suicide watch, 20-something actors are dying of “accidental overdoses,” it seems like the sports world is just trying to keep up. But in the process are we bringing sports down with it.
As fans, I get the feeling that we feel entitled to know everything. Most people would say that we’re responsible for paying these athletes salaries’ therefore we deserve to know everything they’re doing. Before you ask to know all the information, please be prepared to accept the findings.
The reason I mention this is because I wonder if Bud Selig regrets appointing George Mitchell to investigate the world of steroids and their relevance to the world of Major League baseball. Has the 2-year investigation and the accompanying results helped the state of baseball? Do people feel better about the sport now that there have been all these allegations of people using steroids and HGH? What was the reasoning behind fans knowing all this information? Instead of “cleaning up” the game, it seems that we’ve begun dragging the game through the mud and took the focus off the field.
We’re less than a week away from spring training and the signaling of the beginning of the season and the #1 baseball-related story is about Roger Clemens and Brian McNamee. The Mets just pulled off a major trade for the best pitcher in baseball, and it barely got a mention in the New York papers. For the past two months we have been exposed to all kinds of he said-he said accusations, a secretly recorded phone conversation, and an admission of a 6-year old collection of used syringes, vials, and bloody gauze pads. I would not be the least bit surprised to hear that they were bringing Jack Bauer in to “break” Clemens during his appearance in front of Congress. Or maybe they’ll put Clemens’ bloody gauze next to Schilling’s bloody sock at Cooperstown.
You want to talk about the NFL. After an allegation at the beginning of the year when the Patriots were said to be videotaping the Jets during a game, they went into full on “F-you” mode, beating teams by unnecessary scores and came close to orchestrating nearly the greatest season in history. What were they rewarded with? The night before the biggest games of their lives, news came out that a former assistant, now living as a golf pro in Hawaii had admitted that he videotaped the Rams prior to their super bowl match up with the Patriots in 2002. Great timing to drop a story like this, right? Other than being a distraction for the Patriots, what bearing did this information have being made known less than 24 hours prior to the sport’s showcase event? Did FOX need something else to talk about to fill their 6-plus hours of pre-game coverage?
Once again, the focus had been shifted from on the field events to off the field activities. And once again, our desire to know everything took away from our ability to fully enjoy one of sports greatest days, or at least it hung over the day enough to distract people just enough. Two days after one of the best Super Bowl’s in history and a great upset victory by the Giants (you don’t know how hard it was to write that), the news kept pouring in about this story. Another US Senator was brought in to investigate the matter further and that was where many of the stories were headed. Instead of stories about the Giants miraculous victory, we were reading about how the Patriots videotaped the Panthers before their Super Bowl as well. I’m pretty sure that both the Patriots and Bill Belichick were fined by the league and had a draft pick taken away from them. However fit or unfit you feel this punishment was, why is it necessary to involve the US government in a full-fledged investigation into this matter. Why can’t we just leave things alone?
My request to everyone is the same as I previously stated. Let’s not allow sports to be dragged down the same way the rest of our culture is. Let’s focus on the beauty of the sports. Let’s keep the focus on what happens between the lines. I want to remember Hakim Warrick soaring through the air with his ridiculously long arms extended to block Michael Lee’s potentially game-tying jump shot from the corner in the 2003 National Championship game. I want to remember Ivan Rodriguez laying on his back with the ball clenched in his fist after getting run over at the plate, securing a wild card victory against the Giants in 2003, which led to the Marlins eventually winning the world series. Do I care that he may or may not have been doing steroids at the time? Does that take away from the greatness of the moment?
Let’s leave the headlines of US Weekly to the pop culture celebrities.
Are we ruining the games that we love? For many people, sports have played a huge role in their lives. Think about the things that you love about sports and why they mattered so much to you. Now are these things getting overlooked in the way sports are covered today?
Our culture has become one in which we want, need, and get information with such speed and wealth, that we have become a bit spoiled. We’ve also become a culture that is driven by shock value and “train wreck stories.” In a time when Britney Spears is on 24-hour suicide watch, 20-something actors are dying of “accidental overdoses,” it seems like the sports world is just trying to keep up. But in the process are we bringing sports down with it.
As fans, I get the feeling that we feel entitled to know everything. Most people would say that we’re responsible for paying these athletes salaries’ therefore we deserve to know everything they’re doing. Before you ask to know all the information, please be prepared to accept the findings.
The reason I mention this is because I wonder if Bud Selig regrets appointing George Mitchell to investigate the world of steroids and their relevance to the world of Major League baseball. Has the 2-year investigation and the accompanying results helped the state of baseball? Do people feel better about the sport now that there have been all these allegations of people using steroids and HGH? What was the reasoning behind fans knowing all this information? Instead of “cleaning up” the game, it seems that we’ve begun dragging the game through the mud and took the focus off the field.
We’re less than a week away from spring training and the signaling of the beginning of the season and the #1 baseball-related story is about Roger Clemens and Brian McNamee. The Mets just pulled off a major trade for the best pitcher in baseball, and it barely got a mention in the New York papers. For the past two months we have been exposed to all kinds of he said-he said accusations, a secretly recorded phone conversation, and an admission of a 6-year old collection of used syringes, vials, and bloody gauze pads. I would not be the least bit surprised to hear that they were bringing Jack Bauer in to “break” Clemens during his appearance in front of Congress. Or maybe they’ll put Clemens’ bloody gauze next to Schilling’s bloody sock at Cooperstown.
You want to talk about the NFL. After an allegation at the beginning of the year when the Patriots were said to be videotaping the Jets during a game, they went into full on “F-you” mode, beating teams by unnecessary scores and came close to orchestrating nearly the greatest season in history. What were they rewarded with? The night before the biggest games of their lives, news came out that a former assistant, now living as a golf pro in Hawaii had admitted that he videotaped the Rams prior to their super bowl match up with the Patriots in 2002. Great timing to drop a story like this, right? Other than being a distraction for the Patriots, what bearing did this information have being made known less than 24 hours prior to the sport’s showcase event? Did FOX need something else to talk about to fill their 6-plus hours of pre-game coverage?
Once again, the focus had been shifted from on the field events to off the field activities. And once again, our desire to know everything took away from our ability to fully enjoy one of sports greatest days, or at least it hung over the day enough to distract people just enough. Two days after one of the best Super Bowl’s in history and a great upset victory by the Giants (you don’t know how hard it was to write that), the news kept pouring in about this story. Another US Senator was brought in to investigate the matter further and that was where many of the stories were headed. Instead of stories about the Giants miraculous victory, we were reading about how the Patriots videotaped the Panthers before their Super Bowl as well. I’m pretty sure that both the Patriots and Bill Belichick were fined by the league and had a draft pick taken away from them. However fit or unfit you feel this punishment was, why is it necessary to involve the US government in a full-fledged investigation into this matter. Why can’t we just leave things alone?
My request to everyone is the same as I previously stated. Let’s not allow sports to be dragged down the same way the rest of our culture is. Let’s focus on the beauty of the sports. Let’s keep the focus on what happens between the lines. I want to remember Hakim Warrick soaring through the air with his ridiculously long arms extended to block Michael Lee’s potentially game-tying jump shot from the corner in the 2003 National Championship game. I want to remember Ivan Rodriguez laying on his back with the ball clenched in his fist after getting run over at the plate, securing a wild card victory against the Giants in 2003, which led to the Marlins eventually winning the world series. Do I care that he may or may not have been doing steroids at the time? Does that take away from the greatness of the moment?
Let’s leave the headlines of US Weekly to the pop culture celebrities.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Baseball Preview
We’re six days away from pitchers and catchers and I couldn’t be less excited. “6 days till pitchers and catchers used to get me excited. Now it does very little. As an Oriole fan, you may be able to understand my thoughts and more importantly my frustration. If they were in the NL Central, let’s say, I may be singing a different tune.
Now I’m not saying that the National League is far inferior to the American League or that the teams aren’t as good. I may actually argue the opposite. Through the maniacal nature that is the Sox-Yanks rivalry, the American League has been ruined. Two franchises have become so overly consumed with another and have completely destroyed the hopes of virtually every other team in the league. “The greatest rivalry in sports” has turned into a one on one slugfest with 12 other teams observing.
You can’t fault anyone for getting excited about watching a Yankees-Red Sox game, let alone a seven game series. But look at it from any of the other teams perspective, and it may not be as great as it seems. In the American League, how many teams, how many teams, outside the Red Sox and Yankees, can you make an argument for making the World Series? Three? Four if you’re hopeful?
Conversely, take a look at the National League, or as some people call it AAAA. Is the National League made up of worse teams or is it just more balanced? I’d like to argue the latter of that statement. Going into spring training, how many teams in the National League have a legitimate shot at making the World Series? Ten?
The Mets, quite possibly the best team in the NL for about 150 games last year, just added the best pitcher on the planet without diminishing their major league roster. The Phillies, if Brad Lidge works out like they hope, have one of the best top of the rotation tandems to go along with the past two NL MVP’s. Throw in maybe the most complete player in the NL to go along with a number of very good offensive players. Atlanta lost Andruw Jones, but has tons of young hitters to fill his void. A lineup consisting of Teixeira, Franceour, Chipper, McCann, with all the other kids is quite formidable. Then you have a veteran staff of Smoltz, Glavine, and Hudson at the top. Not to mention they’re trying to get back to the postseason after missing it last year for the first time in 14 years.
The NL Central has its own competitive teams. Last year’s division champs added the biggest Japanese export. We saw what happened last year with prize of the Japanese free agent market. I’m pretty sure he has a championship ring. They brought back their ace and might have the most dangerous 3-4-5 in the league. Milwaukee’s “kids” are all one year older and have the experience they lacked last year when they crumbled in the second half of the year. Houston added Miguel Tejada this off-season, who is not completely removed from his MVP season a couple years ago.
Out west, we may have the most competitive division in baseball. Excluding the Giants, each one of those teams has a very legitimate shot at winning the NL and not because of “mediocrity.” Arizona won the division last year and added an ace to pair with their Cy Young winner from two years ago. Their young guys are also a year older and they get Randy Johnson back in some capacity. Colorado went to the World Series last year and was able to lock up their two best players. In the playoffs, they got valuable contributions from two young kids who only surfaced in the majors at the end of the year. They also may have as good a lineup top to bottom as any team in the NL. The Padres have the best pitching staff in the NL and added a former #1 draft pick to that staff. Even a little bit of offense makes them a very dangerous team, especially if they can get to October. Lastly, the Dodgers added a power hitting centerfielder who may be the best defensive outfielder in the game. They also added a manager who brought his previous team to the postseason for the previous 11 seasons. Throw in the return of Jason Schmidt to their rotation behind Brad Penny and Derek Lowe and the abundance of young hitting talent they have on their roster and I’m not sure there is a more balanced team in this division.
So, my point is probably that while the two, maybe three “best” teams in baseball may play in the American League, you may have a hard time arguing against the fact that the next ten play in the NL. The only debatable thing in the AL is who won’t make the playoffs out of the Red Sox, Yankees, Tigers, or Indians? So as we head towards spring training my attention will be squarely focused on the National League and the great match-ups we’ll be treated to consistently throughout the year.
Now I’m not saying that the National League is far inferior to the American League or that the teams aren’t as good. I may actually argue the opposite. Through the maniacal nature that is the Sox-Yanks rivalry, the American League has been ruined. Two franchises have become so overly consumed with another and have completely destroyed the hopes of virtually every other team in the league. “The greatest rivalry in sports” has turned into a one on one slugfest with 12 other teams observing.
You can’t fault anyone for getting excited about watching a Yankees-Red Sox game, let alone a seven game series. But look at it from any of the other teams perspective, and it may not be as great as it seems. In the American League, how many teams, how many teams, outside the Red Sox and Yankees, can you make an argument for making the World Series? Three? Four if you’re hopeful?
Conversely, take a look at the National League, or as some people call it AAAA. Is the National League made up of worse teams or is it just more balanced? I’d like to argue the latter of that statement. Going into spring training, how many teams in the National League have a legitimate shot at making the World Series? Ten?
The Mets, quite possibly the best team in the NL for about 150 games last year, just added the best pitcher on the planet without diminishing their major league roster. The Phillies, if Brad Lidge works out like they hope, have one of the best top of the rotation tandems to go along with the past two NL MVP’s. Throw in maybe the most complete player in the NL to go along with a number of very good offensive players. Atlanta lost Andruw Jones, but has tons of young hitters to fill his void. A lineup consisting of Teixeira, Franceour, Chipper, McCann, with all the other kids is quite formidable. Then you have a veteran staff of Smoltz, Glavine, and Hudson at the top. Not to mention they’re trying to get back to the postseason after missing it last year for the first time in 14 years.
The NL Central has its own competitive teams. Last year’s division champs added the biggest Japanese export. We saw what happened last year with prize of the Japanese free agent market. I’m pretty sure he has a championship ring. They brought back their ace and might have the most dangerous 3-4-5 in the league. Milwaukee’s “kids” are all one year older and have the experience they lacked last year when they crumbled in the second half of the year. Houston added Miguel Tejada this off-season, who is not completely removed from his MVP season a couple years ago.
Out west, we may have the most competitive division in baseball. Excluding the Giants, each one of those teams has a very legitimate shot at winning the NL and not because of “mediocrity.” Arizona won the division last year and added an ace to pair with their Cy Young winner from two years ago. Their young guys are also a year older and they get Randy Johnson back in some capacity. Colorado went to the World Series last year and was able to lock up their two best players. In the playoffs, they got valuable contributions from two young kids who only surfaced in the majors at the end of the year. They also may have as good a lineup top to bottom as any team in the NL. The Padres have the best pitching staff in the NL and added a former #1 draft pick to that staff. Even a little bit of offense makes them a very dangerous team, especially if they can get to October. Lastly, the Dodgers added a power hitting centerfielder who may be the best defensive outfielder in the game. They also added a manager who brought his previous team to the postseason for the previous 11 seasons. Throw in the return of Jason Schmidt to their rotation behind Brad Penny and Derek Lowe and the abundance of young hitting talent they have on their roster and I’m not sure there is a more balanced team in this division.
So, my point is probably that while the two, maybe three “best” teams in baseball may play in the American League, you may have a hard time arguing against the fact that the next ten play in the NL. The only debatable thing in the AL is who won’t make the playoffs out of the Red Sox, Yankees, Tigers, or Indians? So as we head towards spring training my attention will be squarely focused on the National League and the great match-ups we’ll be treated to consistently throughout the year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)